I don't identify as a feminist - so why does this get on my nerves?

[SophieJenkins]

I was listening in the car to WH yesterday and they were doing their 'power list', first off discussing Kim Kardashian (have a vague idea who she is but not much) and then they started off the list and after about 1 or 2 interesting women, they announced Caitlyn Jenner.

I turned it off instantly as I couldn't listen. I don't know why but it just made me really angry.

I didn't want to start another thread about this as I realise from titles that people were getting sick of them, but cant get it out of my head and wondered if anyone could briefly help me figure out why it pissed me off SO much?

If we're not allowed to discuss this then I apologise and feel free to tell me. I haven't been reading any of the other threads about it which perhaps I should have done after all.

I think I feel like being female has been hijacked by someone and used to get publicity - when a lot of women are denied even the basic human rights that come with being a bloke.

And then to be put on a list of high achieving women for what? For wanting to be a woman?

I don't get it.

" Abusers should become unimportant once the abused person has got away from them."

Nope, abusers, like other violent criminals, should be subject to the criminal justice system. I personally favour locking the buggers up and throwing away the key, because the more I read about them, the more I come to the conclusion that they hardly ever reform themselves.

It's kind of feminism 101 for me that we should be taking the focus off the victims and what their behaviour should be (there is no should here - women will respond to violence in a myriad of different ways). Instead we should be shifting it onto the perpetrators and what sanctions should be applied against them.

There seems to be a lack of looking at male violence against women in the context of a wider society (if we are talking about contexts here and it certainly seems we are). Maloney's problems didn't seem to involve him being violent to other men or randomly. His was very specifically violent against his wife. And strangulation at that. And he doesn't feel the need to apologise. All of these are very relevant and significant in the context of the wider issue of VAW.

Lots of Love

A radical (apparently) MN feminist

Abusers should become unimportant once the abused person has got away from them

REALLY??? I'd say that whether we lock them up, counsel them, rehabilitate them or whatever, we don't just decide they're 'unimportant' once the woman closest to them who copped for the violence is no longer close enough to cop it again! Why would you assume that that's the end of the matter?

What women do or do not do is their business, and it's not relevant to what should happen to the abuser. Great if some of them move on from it and aren't destroyed, but many are and you're dangerously close here to suggesting that that is their fault for being 'weak'. I hope that's not what you mean to say.

Oh I missed the abusers become unimportant statement. Not for other women they abuse, they don't. And telling women to move on is also significant in the wider context of male violence against women:

It minimises the men's actions (not worthy of any further attention)
Minimises the women's reactions (get over it)
It puts women in the role of smoothing things over and making things better again (absolving men)
It is yet another message to say women's needs and anger doesn't matter.

Quite frankly it is a reflection of the patriarchy we live in.

Read without my previous posts that did come out wrong... I too saw my rapist prosecuted. Then spent time rebuilding my sense of self, ignoring his existence and concentrating on believing that I was not in any way responsible for his actions. He became utterly unimportant to me. He has never influenced my choices. But that took time for me to achieve. Why would I dwell on him any more?

I am not minimising anything, but I can see that my focus on the abused is coming across like that.

I am not minimising anything, I am making an assumption of my own... that an abuser has been reported, prosecuted and dealt with.. or if that has not been possible, it has been possible for the abused to move far enough away, socially, geographically etc, for the abuser not to be able to have any more direct influence on their life.

We should be supporting every abused individual to gain as much sense of self direction/control as possible. In no way have I said or intimated that anyone who cannot achieve this is weak. What I am saying, again and again, is that to focus on the abuser, man if you will, is to continue to give them power over your actions. I refuse to do that and would support anyone else to do the same.

< Tracey says sadly: “I have been with my partner for two-and-a-bit years but there has been no introduction. Not for lack of want on our part – Kellie is not ready yet. Of course my partner would like to meet,” she says. “Kellie rings me five or six times a day, so he puts up with a lot. I don’t think I’d suffer that the other way around.”

In a frank and emotional exchange in their first joint interview, Tracey turns to Kellie and pleads: “By you doing this it keeps us in one place. We can’t move forwards.” >

KM has refused to meet TM's partner of 2 years and rings TM 5/6 times a day. KM feels unable to support TM's need to move forwards after FM became KM and the marriage collapsed. KM wants to use previous experience and contacts in boxing world acquired as FM.

KM still doesn't fancy "men in dresses" (aka other transgender women)… KM can say this because KM was once FM and is therefore not a nasty TERF and/or female-born lesbian?

KM wants to keep a lot of stuff from FM's life.

Can I just take a moment to repeat my ad infinitum point...? I have not said abusers should get away with anything.

I have now also stated the blindingly obvious (though I really cannot believe it needs stating) that any abuser needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I am also not sure why 'moving on' is a bad thing. Maybe that is where I am 100% out of step. I moved on, I worked hard to get my own sense of equilibrium back. It took time. I know how hard that is. But is possible and I cant see how supporting others to work towards the same is wrong. Or that to attempt it is to brand others weak...

Moving on isn't a bad thing. Saying that the abusers don't matter in that process is a bad thing. Men shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. Victims are part of that process. It is part of the validation that women matter. That what happened to you mattered.

Nobody is branding anyone weak, least of all victims of male abuse.

Given Maloney openly admitted the assault, has there been a police investigation?

shouldn't????? SHOULD (of course)

Yes, I have said all of those things. And no, I am not minimising or defending anything.

I'll try again.

1. We shape our society by our actions, our words and deeds. I believe that we can do that best if we take time to consider the underlying reasons for any aberrant behaviour. Understanding behavioural causality gives us a lot of weapons against said behaviour.

So I will not say, simplistically, that an abuser is just an abuser, is bad by definition. Not because I think they should be given a free pass, but because I believe that only by being able to recognise precursors to said behaviour can we take any steps to prevent it - on an individual or societal basis.

1. I do think it is incumbent upon us as a society, and as individuals, to recognise underlying causality. If a victim still has a relationship with an abuser I think we do need to understand the reasons for it. Not to assume that the abused is still in thrall to the abuser. Not to assume that a woman will always be so enthralled. I find that offensive!

1. And yes, most definitely. Once an abuser has been dealt with by the law I couldn't give a flying fuck what happens to them. They can rot in hell for all I care.

But that does not mean that we, as a society and as individuals, can not learn from their actions and try to take steps that ensure that we are better prepared to deal with them, others like them, in future.

So we should be listening to people like KM, to what she is saying, trying to defend, and wondering why? What leads them to try to do something so indefensible? Once we understand that we might gain new insights and new weapons to combat such behaviour in the future.

"1. We shape our society by our actions, our words and deeds. I believe that we can do that best if we take time to consider the underlying reasons for any aberrant behaviour. Understanding behavioural causality gives us a lot of weapons against said behaviour." so why are you not looking at this in the context of male violence against women? If you want to look at the root cause of behaviour then why did this man feel entitled to nearly strangle his wife?

"Not to assume that the abused is still in thrall to the abuser." Do you think people don't look at why women stay with abusers or something? there is plenty of research out there on this. "in thrall" is not the expression I would use as again that minimises the actions of the man and returns the focus back to the women's actions. Ground down (drip drip effect). Having the actions of the man minimised and dismissed. Society supporting the abuser rather than the victim. Lack of support to get away. Loads and loads of reasons and it all still comes back to how society deals with male abusers and how that supports male abusers feeling entitled to abuse women. And no-one has said women will always stay "in thrall". And nobody on this thread want that to happen.

"They can rot in hell for all I care." But they often don't. They are often lauded or just allowed to continue abusing other women.

scallops I am just saying I don't make those gendered assumptions. I am less nihilistic, more optimistic than that. I give more credit to all individuals, OK, I am naïve that way! But I do believe that by adding the word 'man' to my statement you stop looking at the whole problem.

So why are you not looking at this in the context of male violence against women? Well, it is probably because I don't see violence as a male prerogative. You may notice I have not assigned gender to abusers/abused individuals in my posts.

Yes, I know the statistics, the history, the need for more to be done. Indeed that point is at the root of my posts.

I believe that men and women are equally capable of abuse, a wide variety of abusive behaviours. Some we instantly recognise and others that we don't yet understand. I also believe that we cannot stop looking at how such abuse evolves. You say there are studies, is evidence.... yes, but if we stop looking, stop adding information, our understanding loses it applicability to our current situation.

Maybe that is another point of disconnect for me. I have seen women in society change. I have seen many take on aspects of 'masculinity', the Ladette if you like. And I am disappointed. That is not why I voiced my feminist beliefs way back in the 70s/80s. I dislike the masculinisation of young women. I think it does much to hide abuse, to normalise it.

Oops!

"It" being aggression, abuse etc.

Take 'banter' as an example. Disgusting word that hides so much abuse and bullying. Yet so many people defend it!

I loathe the term 'ladette' (though thankfully these days it's usually limited to 90s nostalgia shows), but
a) why shouldn't women drink and have fun in ways which used to be limited to men because of a sense that they're 'masculine?', and
b) in what way does that hide or normalise abuse?

Lou,

thanks for the bullet points. I now get what you're trying to say and it does seem as though you have totally hijacked this thread to talk about another issue.

Perhaps you would like to start your own?

We are talking about male violence against women. A man strangling a woman. How is adding 'man' not looking at the whole problem?

Sorry OP - you're right, and in engaging with it we have obscured your original point

And not assigning genders again erases male violence against women. One of the tools of female oppression.

"I believe that men and women are equally capable of abuse, a wide variety of abusive behaviours." Well the stats don't back you up. 98% of sexual violence is perpetrated by men. 96% of murders are perpetrated by men. Yes individual women are capable of acts of violence just the same as men, but as a class they don't. Why is that? Why do men feel entitled to perpetrate so much violence?

Yep sorry Sophie. I suspect I'm wasting my breath.